1
$\begingroup$

This is more of a mathematical/conceptual question. I am reading through Chapter 12 of Shankar's "Principle's Of Quantum Mechanics" 2nd Edition, and in the very first section he describes a "consistency test" for the translation operator in that:

$$T(\mathbf{b})T(\mathbf{a})=T(\mathbf{a+b}) \tag{12.1.6}$$

$$ e^{-i\mathbf{b}\cdot\mathbf{P}/\hbar }e^{-i\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{P}/\hbar }=e^{-i\mathbf{(a+b)}\cdot\mathbf{P}/\hbar } \tag{12.1.7}$$

Should be true and without proof, he says yes because the operators commute:

$$[P_x,P_y]=0 \tag{12.1.8}$$

This is what I don't understand, how would the exponentials combine if $[P_x,P_y]=0$ did not commute? It seems like they would combine in the same exact way. For example, lets suppose we have two translations in the $\vec{x}$ direction so that we have:

\begin{align} T(\mathbf{b\hat{x}})T(\mathbf{a\hat{x}})&=e^{-i\mathbf{b}\cdot\mathbf{P}/\hbar }e^{-i\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{P}/\hbar }\\ &=e^{-ib{P_x}/\hbar }e^{-ia{P_x}/\hbar }\\ &=e^{-ib{P_x}/\hbar-ia{P_x}/\hbar}\\ &=e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar} (bP_x+aP_x) }\\ &=e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar} (b+a)P_x }\\ \end{align}

Which still satisfies the "law of combination" for the translation and does not even rely on commutativity. Can some one clear this up for me?

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

4
$\begingroup$

If $A$ and $B$ do not commute, then generally $$e^A e^B \neq e^{A+B}.$$ Then if $P_x$ and $P_y$ don't commute, we generally have $$T(a \hat{x}) T(b \hat{y}) \neq T(a \hat{x} + b \hat{y}).$$ You only considered the case of combining translations along the same direction; these will always compose nicely, basically by definition.


Clarification: let's expand both $e^A e^B$ and $e^{A+B}$ and compare the results. On the left-hand side, $$(1+A+A^2/2 + \ldots)(1+B+B^2/2 + \ldots) = 1 + (A + B) + \left(AB + \frac{A^2}{2} + \frac{B^2}{2}\right) + \ldots.$$ On the right-hand side, we have $$1 + (A+B) + \frac{(A+B)^2}{2} + \ldots.$$ The second order terms are not the same! The cross terms are $AB$ on the left-hand side, and $(AB+BA)/2$ on the right-hand side. So they're only generally equal if $A$ and $B$ commute.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I don't see how $$e^A e^B \neq e^{A+B}.$$ is true if A and B do not commute. Can you provide some explanation? $\endgroup$ Feb 15, 2017 at 21:23
  • $\begingroup$ @DonkeyKong I added a bit of explanation. $\endgroup$
    – knzhou
    Feb 15, 2017 at 21:30
  • $\begingroup$ See also physics.stackexchange.com/questions/132886/… $\endgroup$
    – gj255
    Feb 15, 2017 at 21:36
0
$\begingroup$

In general, for operators $X$ and $Y$ which do not necessarily commute, one has,

$$\ln(\exp X \exp Y) = X + Y + \frac12 [X,Y] + \frac{1}{12} \left([X,[X,Y]]+[Y,[Y,X]] \right) + \dots$$

which is known as the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula. As you can see, if $P_x$ and $P_y$ commute, the higher order terms vanish and indeed the resultant expression is simply $P_x+ P_y$.

As a somewhat ad hoc example, one would have $e^a e^{a^\dagger} = e^{a + a^\dagger + \frac12}$ since $[a,a^\dagger]= 1$, and only the first commutator contributes, since higher terms are nested commutators and obviously constants commute with $a$ and $a^\dagger$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.